İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Kültürel Olarak Duyarlı Öğretime Yönelik Kişisel ve Mesleki Hazırbulunuşlukları

Öz

Problem Durumu: 21. yüzyıl ile birlikte küreselleşme, bilgi, teknoloji ve dijitalleşme gibi olgular yaşadığımız dünyayı değiştirmiş ve çokkültürlülük, kültürel melezlik ya da çoklu kimlik gibi kavramları günlük yaşantımızın bir parçası haline getirmiştir. Alanyazında da belirtildiği gibi eğitimsel amaçların mevcut sosyal ve küresel ihtiyaçlara uyması gerekmektedir. Dolayısıyla, öğrencilere onları günümüzün çokkültürlü dünyasıyla bütünleştirecek gerekli becerilerin kazandırılması esastır. Günümüz okullarında ve sınıflarında artmakta olan kültürel çeşitlilik göz önüne alındığında, çokkültürlü eğitim karar alıcıların, yöneticilerin ve uygulamacıların dikkate alması gereken bir gerçek ve ihtiyaçtır. Çokkültürlü eğitim, cinsiyet, sosyal sınıf, etnik köken, ırk veya kültürel özelliklerine bakılmaksızın her öğrenciye gerekli eğitimi alması için eşit fırsat sunulmasını amaçlamaktadır. Ancak eğitim politikaları, öğretim programları ve ders kitapları çokkültürlü eğitim çerçevesinde yeniden şekillendirilse bile, kâğıt üstünde kalan tüm bu planları sınıf ortamında gerçekleştirenin öğretmenler olduğu unutulmamalıdır. Öğretmenlerin çokkültürlü eğitimi sınıf ortamına yansıtabilmeleri için neyi nasıl yapmaları gerektiğini bilmeleri oldukça önemlidir. Kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretimin amacı öğretmenlerin sınıf içerisinde kullandıkları stratejilere ve uygulamalara odaklanarak öğrencilerin sahip oldukları kültürel farklılıkların akademik başarılarını engellenmesi önlemek ve öğrencilere kendi kültürel kimliklerini ve ana dillerini korurken hem ana akım kültürle hem de tüm dünya ile uyum içinde hareket edebilmeleri için gerekli olan temel bilgi ve becerileri sağlamaktır. Sınıf içerisine odaklanan kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretim pek çok farklı yeterliliği ve sorumluluğu kapsamaktadır. Bu nedenle, öğretmenlerin tüm bu yeterlilikleri başarılı bir şekilde uygulayabilme ve gerekli sorumlulukları alabilme konusundaki hazırbulunuşlukları kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretimin etkin bir biçimde uygulanabilmesi için oldukça önemlidir.

Araştırmanın Amacı: Ulusal alanyazın öğretmenlerin kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretimi uygulama konusunda yaşadıkları problemleri genel hatlarıyla ortaya koysa da, İngilizce öğretmenlerinin kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretim açısından ne derece hazır olduğuna ve ne çeşit sorunlarla karşılaştıklarına odaklanan çalışmaların sayısı oldukça azdır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmanın amacı İngilizce öğretmenlerinin kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretime kişisel olarak ve mesleki olarak ne derece hazır bulunduklarını incelemek ve İngilizce öğretmenlerinin kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretimle ilgili algılarını, sınıfta ne tip sorunlarla karşılaştıklarını ve bunlara nasıl çözümler ürettiklerini irdelemektir. Bu bağlamda bu çalışmanın cevap aradığı araştırma soruları şunlardır: (1) İngilizce öğretmenleri kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretime kişisel ve mesleki olarak ne derece hazırlardır? (1a) İngilizce öğretmenlerinin kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretime kişisel olarak hazırbulunuşlukları ile mesleki olarak hazırbulunuşlukları arasında istatistiksek olarak anlamlı bir fark var mıdır? (1b) Öğretmenlik deneyimi ve mezun olunan lisans programı açısından İngilizce öğretmenlerinin kişisel ve mesleki olarak hazırbulunuşluklarında anlamlı bir far var mıdır? (2) İngilizce öğretmenleri çokkültürlülüğü ve kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretimi nasıl algılamaktadır? İngilizce öğretmenleri kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretimle ilgili ne tip sorunlarla karşılaşmakta ve bunlara nasıl çözümler üretmektedirler?

Yöntem: Bu çalışmada çalışmanın amacı doğrultusunda belirlenen araştırma sorularına cevap aramak için ardışık açıklayıcı karma yöntem kullanılmıştır. Bu yöntemde veriler iki farklı aşamada toplanmaktadır. Birinci aşamada nicel veriler toplanırken ikinci aşamada nitel veriler birinci aşamada ortaya çıkan bulguları açıklamak ve yorumlamak için toplanmaktadır ve ağırlık nicel verilerde olsa da araştırma sorularının cevaplandırılmasında her iki veri tipi de kullanılmaktadır. Çalışmanın nicel kısmında uygunluk örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmış ve Türkiye’nin farklı illerinde görev yapmakta olan 415 İngilizce öğretmeni katılmışken nitel kısmına ise 12 İngilizce öğretmenli katılmıştır. Nicel verilerin toplanmasında Karataş ve Oral (2017) tarafından geliştirilen kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretim hazırbulunuşluk ölçeği kullanılırken nitel veriler sekiz adet açık uçlu yarı-yapılandırılmış mülakat soruları ile toplanmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde SPSS 23 programı kullanılmıştır. Verilerin normal dağıldığı basıklık ve çarpıklık değerleri doğrultusunda tespit edildikten sonra parametrik testlerden sırasıyla eşleştirilmiş örneklemler t-testi, tek yönlü ANOVA testi ve bağımsız örneklem t-testi uygulanmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde ise Braun ve Clarke (2013) tarafından önerilen tematik analiz yönteminin adımları uygulanmıştır. Önce nitel veriler yazıya aktarılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çokkültürlü eğitim
• kültürel olarak duyarlı öğretim
• hazırbulunuşluk
• İngilizce öğretimi
• İngilizce öğretmenleri

Personal and Professional Readiness of In-service Teachers of English for Culturally Responsive Teaching

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study was twofold. First, it investigated the extent to which in-service teachers of English were personally and professionally ready to carry out culturally responsive teaching (CRT). Second, it aimed to understand teachers’ perceptions of CRT.

Research Method: This study was carried out in a sequential explanatory mixed methods design. Accordingly, first quantitative data were gathered in the first phase through administering CRT readiness scale. In the second phase, qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews to gain detailed insights about their perceptions. A total number of 415 in-service teachers of English participated in the quantitative phase of the study, and 12 teachers participated in the semi-structured interviews.

Findings: Quantitative findings showed significant differences between teachers' personal and professional readiness, novice and experienced teachers, and graduates of ELT departments and graduates of ELL and ACL departments. Qualitative findings showed that experience alone was a distinguishable factor for CRT and also underlined the necessity for and the importance of culture-oriented courses in undergraduate English language teacher education.

Implications for Research and Practice: Accordingly, enriching undergraduate English language teacher education programs with culture-oriented courses is a need. Such courses should cover both theoretical and practical sides of multicultural education and CRT. There is also a need to provide more opportunities for teacher candidates to execute teaching practices in real and culturally diverse classrooms. Furthermore, the need for studies focusing on field-specific competencies and real classroom settings are also underlined.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• multicultural education
• culturally responsive teaching
• readiness
• English language teaching
• in-service teachers of English

Kaynakça

1. Abacioglu, C. S., Volman, M., & Fischer, A. H. (2019). Teachers’ multicultural attitudes and perspective taking abilities as factors in culturally responsive teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, (Early View), 1-17. Doi:10.1111/bjep.12328
2. Aceves, T. C., & Orosco, M. J. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching (Document No. IC-2). Retrieved on 28 December, 2019 from https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/culturally-responsive.pdf
3. Aigrain, P. (2012). Sharing: Culture and the economy in the internet age. Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.
4. Akinlar, A., & Dogan, S. (2017). Investigating multicultural education phenomena in minority and public high schools in Turkey: A multiple case study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 71, 1-20.
5. APA. (2002). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. APA. Retrieved on January 14, 2020 from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines-archived.pdf
6. Arikan, A. (2011). Prospective English language teachers’ perceptions of the target language and culture in relation to their socioeconomic status. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 232-242.
7. Arikan, A. (2019). Creating language teacher communities. In G. Yangin Eksi, L. Guerra, D. Werbinska, & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Recent Trends in English Language Teacher Education and English Language Teaching (pp. 1-14). Portugal: University of Evora.
8. Atay, D. (2007). Beginning teacher efficacy and the practicum in an EFL context. Teacher Development, 11(2), 203-219.

9. Atay, D. (2008). Teacher research for professional development. ELT Journal, 62(2), 139-147.
10. Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. R. Hollins, J. E. King, & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 5-23). Albany: State University of New York Press.
11. Aydin, A. (2019). The examination of 21st century skills in teacher education within the framework of English pre-service teachers’ views. Unpublished MA Thesis. Institute of Educational Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
12. Bagceli Kahraman, P., & Onur Sezer, G., (2017). Relationship between attitudes of multicultural education and perceptions regarding cultural effect of globalization. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 67, 233‐249.
13. Banks, J. A. (2010). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives, (pp. 3-30). USA: Wiley.
14. Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2006). Culture speaks: Cultural relationships and classroom learning. Wellington, New Zealand: Huia.
15. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
16. Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education.
17. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
18. Caliskan, S. (2019). A phenomenological study on multicultural education in preservice English language teaching. Unpublished MA Thesis. Institute of Educational Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
19. Chen, D., & Yang, X., (2017). Improving active classroom participation of ESL Students: Applying culturally responsive teaching strategies. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(1),79-86.
20. Chlopek, Z. (2008). The intercultural approach to EFL teaching and learning. English Teaching Forum, 46(4), 10-27.
21. Chou, P-I., Su, M-H., & Wang, Y-T. (2018). Transforming teacher preparation for culturally responsive teaching in Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 116-127.
22. Civitillo, S., Juang, L. P., Badra, M., & Schachner, M. K. (2019). The interplay between culturally responsive teaching, cultural diversity beliefs, and self-reflection: A multiple case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 341-351.
23. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. USA: Routledge.
24. Corbett, J. (2003). An intercultural approach to English language teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
25. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Materials and methods in the EFL classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching (pp. 196-219). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
27. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-266.
29. Diaz, A. P., & Arikan, A. (2016). A comparison of Argentinean and Turkish English language teacher education curricula. Sustainable Multilingualism, 9, 154-167.
30. Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. USA: Teachers College Press.
32. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116.
33. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A Simple guide and reference. USA: Allyn & Bacon.
34. Graddol, D. (2000). The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century. UK: The British Council.
35. Gu, (2012). Language learning strategies: An EIL perspective. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 318-334). New York: Routledge.
36. Heineke, A. J. (2014). Dialoging about English learners: Preparing teachers through culturally relevant literature circles. Action in Teacher Education, 36(2), 117-140.
37. Hossain, M., & Aydin, H. (2011). A Web 2.0-based collaborative model for multicultural education. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 5(2), 116-128.
38. Hsiao, Y-J. (2015). The culturally responsive teacher preparedness scale: An exploratory study. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(4), 241-250.
39. Karakas, A. (2012). Evaluation of the English language teacher education program in Turkey. ELT Weekly, 4(15), 1-16.
40. Karatas, K., & Oral, B. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions on culturally responsiveness in education. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 2(2), 47-57.
41. Karatas, K., & Oral, B. (2017). Cultural responsive teaching readiness scale validity and reliability study. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 7(2), 245-256.
42. Kiczkowiak, M. (2019). Seven principles for writing materials for English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal. doi:10.1093/elt/ccz042
43. Koc-Damgaci, F., & Aydin, H. (2018). Social media and its potential impacts on multicultural education in Turkey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 797-810.
44. Kotluk, N., & Kockaya, S. (2018). Culturally relevant/responsive education: What do teachers think in Turkey? Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 5(2), 98-117.
45. Kramsch, C. (2014). The challenge of globalization for the teaching of foreign languages and cultures. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 11(2), 249-254.
46. Krisneepaiboon, N. (2015). The role of new media in multicultural Australia: A study of Thai, Rohingya and Hmong communities. Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications, 1(1), 71-82.
47. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.
48. Lendis, E. I. (2014). Teaching in a 21st century educational context: A case study to explore the alignment between vision, instruction and the needs of a 21st century workplace. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Duquesne University, Pittsburg, PA, USA.
49. Lin, S. M. (2015). Study of ELL students’ writing difficulties: A call for culturally, linguistically, and psychologically responsive teaching. College Student Journal, 49(2), 237-250.
50. Mahalingappa, L. J., & Polat, N. (2013). English language teacher education in Turkey: policy vs academic standards. European Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 371-383.
51. Matsuda, A. (2006). Negotiating ELT assumptions in EIL classrooms. In J. Edge (Ed.), (Re)locating TESOL in an age of empire (pp. 158–170). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
52. Matsuda, A. (2012). Teaching materials in EIL. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 168-185). New York: Routledge.
53. Matsuda, A. (2017). Introduction. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. xiii-xviii). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
54. McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55. McKoy, C. L., MacLeod, R. B., Walter, J. S., & Nolker, D. B. (2017). The impact of an in-service workshop on cooperating teachers’ perceptions of culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(2), 50-63.
56. Muniz, J. (2019). Culturally responsive teaching: A 50-state survey of teaching standards. USA: New America.
57. Nayir, F., & Saridas, G., (2020). A conceptual review of multicultural education, intercultural education and culturally responsive education. The Journal of International Social Sciences, 13(70), 769-779.
58. Nayir, F., & Taskin, P. (2020). Teachers’ views on managing multiculturalism in classroom setting. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, Online first, 1-24. DOI: 10.30964/auebfd.594564
59. O'Keeffe, S. B. (2019). How exemplary educators use their instructional expertise to support CLDE achievement in English‐only inclusive classrooms. TESOL Journal, 11(2), 1-10.
60. Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context. New York: Routledge.
61. Ozturk, G., & Aydin, B. (2019). English language teacher education in Turkey: Why do we fail and what policy reforms are needed? Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9(1), 181-213.
62. Ozudogru, F. (2018). The readiness of prospective teachers for culturally responsive teaching. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 11(3-4), 1-12.
63. Paksoy, E. E. (2017). Examination of teacher experiences in context of culturally responsive teaching. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Institute of Educational Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
64. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
65. Piątkowska, K. (2015). From cultural knowledge to intercultural communicative competence: changing perspectives on the role of culture in foreign language teaching. Intercultural Education, 26(5), 397-408.
66. Porto, M. (2010). Culturally responsive L2 education: An awareness-raising proposal. ELT Journal, 64(1), 45-53.
67. Rhodes, C. M. (2013). A study of culturally responsive teaching practices of adult ESOL and EAP teachers. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 2(3), 170-183.
68. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. USA: Cambridge University Press.
69. Schreiber, B. R. (2019). “More like you”: Disrupting native speakerism through a multimodal online intercultural exchange. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 1115-1138.
70. Seferoglu, G. (2006). Teacher candidates’ reflections on some components of a pre-service English teacher education programme in Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 369-378.
71. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72. Siapera, E (2006). Multiculturalism online: The internet and the dilemmas of multicultural politics. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(1), 5-24.
73. Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086-1101.
74. Siwatu, K. O., Chesnut, S. R., Alejandro, A. Y., & Young, H. A. (2016). Examining preservice teachers' culturally responsive teaching self- efficacy doubts. The Teacher Educator, 51(4), 277-296.
75. Sleeter, C. E., & Owuor, J. (2011). Research on the impact of teacher preparation to teach diverse students: The research we have and the research we need. Action in Teacher Education, 33(5-6), 524-536.
76. Smith, P. (2020). “Mr. Wang doesn’t really care how we speak!”: Responsiveness in the practice of an exemplary Asian‑American teacher. Urban Review, 52(2), 351-375.
77. Sobel, D. M., & Taylor, S. (2015). Supporting novice special education teachers in delivering inclusive, culturally responsive instruction. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 16(1), 33-41.
78. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. USA: Pearson Education.
79. Tan, J. P. L. (2008). Closing the gap: A multiliteracies approach to English language teaching for ‘at-risk’ students in Singapore. In A. Healy (Ed.), Multiliteracies and diversity in education: New pedagogies for expanding landscapes (pp. 144-167). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
80. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
81. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
82. Tonbuloglu, B., Aslan, D., & Aydin, H., (2016). Teachers’ awareness of multicultural education and diversity in school settings. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 64, 1-28.
83. Tseng, Y-H. (2002). A lesson in culture. ELT Journal, 56(1), 11-21.
84. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
85. Yavuz, A., & Zehir-Topkaya, E. (2013). Teacher educators’ evaluation of the English language teaching program: A Turkish case. Novitas-ROYAL, 7(1), 64-83.
86. Yildirim, R. (2019). Teaching in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: Turkish EFL instructors’ experience. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(3), 1155-1170.
87. Yuce, E. (2019). EPOSTL: Revisiting the roles of language teachers at a recently established ELT department. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 6(1), 234-243.